‘Territory for Truce’ Deal Slammed by Ukrainian Ex-Minister

Suggestions that Ukraine trade territory for a truce – reportedly based on background briefings from Ukrainian officials – have been slammed by a leading analyst and former Minister in the Ukrainian government.

Tymofiy Mylovanov, the current President of the Kyiv School of Economics and a former Minister of Economy, took to X to dissect and demolish an alleged plan featured in the UK’s Financial Times (FT) whereby Ukraine would be given NATO membership for essentially ceding territory to the Russian Federation.

In a piece dramatically entitled “Ukraine Faces Its Darkest Hour,” controversial journalist Christopher Miller (along with co-authors Ben Hall and Henry Foy) writes that Ukraine “is losing on the battlefield in the east of the country” and “is struggling to restore its depleted ranks with motivated and well-trained soldiers” – two debatable claims. He cites alleged Western pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky “towards a negotiated settlement” and quotes an unnamed Ukrainian official as saying “most players want de-escalation” and claiming that Zelensky’s recent trip to Washington DC was a “catastrophe.”

The authors go on to write of “multiple European officials” – again unnamed – who “note more openness from Ukrainian officials to discuss the potential for agreeing a ceasefire even while Russian troops remain on their territory.” He also claims – without source – that Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, Andriy Sybiha, is discussing “potential compromise solutions” with counterparts. The claim is directly denied by the Ukrainian foreign ministry.

Other Topics of Interest

Russian Lawmakers Recast Definition of Treason in New Bill

The definition of high treason in Russia now includes “activities against [the] security of the Russian Federation,” which is open to the Kremlin’s interpretation

FT then describes a potential deal – presumably under consideration by American decision-makers – that would involve Ukraine receiving security guarantees, such as NATO membership, in exchange for land that becomes Russian-controlled. The security guarantees would be based on “a defined line on the map that determines what portion of Ukraine’s territory [NATO’s] mutual defense clause applies to.” Ostensibly, such an arrangement involves Russia receiving more Ukrainian territory than the 18 per cent of Ukraine it currently illegally occupies.

The response by Mylovanov to the article’s assertions is direct and dismissive. He opens by stating on X that such a “peace for territory” plan “ignores reality and will prove a disaster.”

His statement is based on his view that: a) the US “can’t impose its will on either Ukrainians or Russians”; b) the US has limited leverage to force Ukraine into such a deal as “it is also clear to Ukrainians that future support from the US is unlikely anyway”; and, c) it is difficult for the US to withdraw support it has pledged to date.

Mylovanov then points out “another flaw is the assumption that Russia will stop pushing into Ukraine if Ukraine gives up territory.”

Kyiv, he says, was attacked even though Ukraine had de facto “given up Crimea and parts of Donbas.” It is also well established that there are a series of past agreements with regard to Ukrainian territorial sovereignty that Russia has not adhered to.

NATO accession, according to Mylovanov, is “very dubious [as] the US can’t commit to accept Ukraine into NATO quickly and countries like Hungary and other Russian friends can delay and derail the process.”

Christopher Miller, the author of the recent book “The War On Ukraine,” has reported on and written about Ukrainian affairs since 2010 with both accolades and criticisms for having repeatedly exaggerated the far-right presence in Ukraine.